Tier lists are full of nonsense

[Evantabes]

I happened to come across this article this morning and then I see it on here too so I'm gonna be completely honest, this was probably the worst thing I've read in a long time and that's saying something. I know it's coming from Kotaku so obviously any actual competitive discussion should be taken with a grain of salt but this was a special kind of bad.

Let's get a couple things out of the way first. First, there isn't anything wrong with the ultimate message of the article. People should play the character they want (But this should be kind of obvious because no one really cares about which character anyone besides themselves is playing) . Depending on what they are trying to get out of a fighting game, this is the character that either gives them the greatest amount of enjoyment while playing the game or gives them the greatest chance to win. I say it depends because a casual player who is just trying to have fun is less likely to care about what gives them the best chance of winning so they might play a goofy shit tier character. Compare this to a tournament player who is seeking constant improvement. They will pick the character they think gives them the best chance at winning games. Most of the time this character happens to be the one that a player finds fun and enjoys playing, so these two traits are not mutually exclusive.

Another thing that is true is that tier lists actually don't matter that much, at least not in the way that the author is talking about them. They're nothing more than a collection of public knowledge to give people a general idea of character strength relative to each other and they should be treated as such, similar to power rankings in sports. The key phrase here is general idea, because obviously a character being low tier does not automatically disqualify them from winning against high tier characters. At the end of the day tier lists should not be used as any kind of bible. They only exist to give a rough estimation of character placement and should not be the defining factor in character choice. (By the way, this is why I cringe every time I see people arguing why their character should be something like 2 spots higher/lower on a tier list. As long as it's close enough who cares?)

Now if this was an article about how if you only play casually then you shouldn't care about tier lists (Again, did that really need explaining?) then it would be fine . But the main problem with it is that the author is attempting to use their anecdotes from low level play to justify why perceived strength of characters are irrelevant to all levels of play, which is just wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a reason Dragon picks the characters he does, especially when hes playing for a boatload of money. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a casual player. Not everyone has the time and discipline to compete at a high level. But if you've never experienced it, does it really make sense to make such a broad, sweeping claim about something that exists in all competitive games, especially when that thing isn't exactly new? Especially when her main talking point is that people online shit talk her for playing Blanka? Completely ignoring the fact that you should be smacked upside the head if you get offended by online shit talk, this is the worst argument I've ever seen. When people take a shitter to a tournament and do well, what actually happens? Everybody gets hyped as fuck and they're instantly the crowd favorite! Not only that, but low tier heroes always get more respect than normal. I guess my main problem with this is that there is such of difference in thought process between casual and competitive players, and taking that into account this article should have never been published.

What worries me more is the fact that this article is receiving any kind of validation on this site. I'll give the commenters on Kotaku a pass because there's no telling what games those goons play or if they've ever played anything competitively in their lives. But if you're on this site, which is supposed to be the home for competitive NRS games, I'm assuming you care at least a little bit about continued growth as a player, which should be the ultimate goal of the competitive player. And this article was so blatantly awful that anyone with any kind of experience in anything competitive should be able to see that. I guess it speaks to the quality of the content on this site now that this is somehow getting praised.

 

[Undergroundepict]

I think Tier discussions can drive some players away though. When Injustice 2 first came out I was checking out Wonder Woman as a character to play, and in the General Discussions there were several players sharing good tech and good matchup advice. But they ended up getting drowned out by the people complaining about WW being low tier, or how her trait was garbage, and how she should be able to reflect projectiles with her parry. After awhile the good players stopped posting, likely because they were tired of dealing with Tier mongerers all the time.

IMO, when the game first came out, Wonder Woman was low tier. After the first balance patch, she received some quality of life buffs that most felt did not address her key issues, but in actuality made her substantially better. Her improvement from a tier perspective was overlooked for a time because the changes she received were for the most part quite subtle, and it is a rarity for such subtle buffs to have such a drastic impact. IIRC, most believed she moved from potential bottom 5 to lower-mid, when in reality she is now top 10, if not top 5.

Could you imagine if she received the ability to choose her trait on top of her buffs? She would be soooo broke, lol.


Anyways, I think it important to think of tier lists as reflections or representations of the current meta as it stands and is perceived right now, rather than logically derived or empirically based measures of how good a character actually is. When somebody discovers new tech that completely revamps a character's playstyle and sends them surging up the tier list, it doesn't mean the old tier list was wrong, so much as it means that the meta has continued to evolve.

 

[Tony at Home]

I feel like people aren't actually reading the whole article because holy shit there's so much wrong with it- even if you are on the side of largely discrediting tiers...

Fighting game fan site EventHubs has a collectionof ever-changing tier lists

Problems start here, EventHubs lists. They're not tier lists so much as salt lists.

The best tier lists are those of top players. They give alot of wisdom about the game, and despite them being top players, their tier lists are diverse from each other. There will be some overwhelming consensus on stuff- but when there is you sure as hell know there's reason for it. But it's not the complete homogenous crap you get from an EventHubs tier list which is just the combine thought of 1000000 scrubs into one entity. The best tiers lists are from singular, free-thinking, experienced high level players.

(author discusses going from playing Blanka to Chun Li as a low-to-high tier experience)
That is, I went from playing emotionally to playing logically and sensibly—or so I told myself. But had I actually won any more often? No. My win rate has stayed about the same.

I take alot of issue with this. It's very common for players to be better with a low tier that suits their personal style than a top tier that doesn't suit their style. There is always an element of "you don't pick the character, the character that picks you".

There's so many top players in the NRS community that would have no shame in playing what is the complete optimal best character at any time, and yet in that group we have a ton of different top players playing different characters, because to an extent- comfort with a character will override mechanical advantages of playing a better character.

That collective disdain of Blanka also seemed to benefit my win rate, because it meant a lack of familiarity with the spacing and speed of his attacks.

This and alot of other lines from the author basically state that Blanka was so good at being a bill that tiers don't matter because low tiers have an inherant "Bill Advantage"

A character being good due to lack of matchup familiarity and a character being good due to mechanics is inherently different. Because the former can be overcome by a solid hour in practice mode when your opponent learns they have to deal with your Bill of a character and the latter can't.

The "unfamiliar matchup" advantages is a way that a healthy roster size can make the game more exciting and surprising- but it doesn't really invalidate the usefulness of discussing tiers.

And Ryu does seem like he sucks in SFV, despite being an utter hunk.

Agreed.

 

[Undergroundepict]

I happened to come across this article this morning and then I see it on here too so I'm gonna be completely honest, this was probably the worst thing I've read in a long time and that's saying something. I know it's coming from Kotaku so obviously any actual competitive discussion should be taken with a grain of salt but this was a special kind of bad.

Let's get a couple things out of the way first. First, there isn't anything wrong with the ultimate message of the article. People should play the character they want (But this should be kind of obvious because no one really cares about which character anyone besides themselves is playing) . Depending on what they are trying to get out of a fighting game, this is the character that either gives them the greatest amount of enjoyment while playing the game or gives them the greatest chance to win. I say it depends because a casual player who is just trying to have fun is less likely to care about what gives them the best chance of winning so they might play a goofy shit tier character. Compare this to a tournament player who is seeking constant improvement. They will pick the character they think gives them the best chance at winning games. Most of the time this character happens to be the one that a player finds fun and enjoys playing, so these two traits are not mutually exclusive.

Another thing that is true is that tier lists actually don't matter that much, at least not in the way that the author is talking about them. They're nothing more than a collection of public knowledge to give people a general idea of character strength relative to each other and they should be treated as such, similar to power rankings in sports. The key phrase here is general idea, because obviously a character being low tier does not automatically disqualify them from winning against high tier characters. At the end of the day tier lists should not be used as any kind of bible. They only exist to give a rough estimation of character placement and should not be the defining factor in character choice. (By the way, this is why I cringe every time I see people arguing why their character should be something like 2 spots higher/lower on a tier list. As long as it's close enough who cares?)

Now if this was an article about how if you only play casually then you shouldn't care about tier lists (Again, did that really need explaining?) then it would be fine . But the main problem with it is that the author is attempting to use their anecdotes from low level play to justify why perceived strength of characters are irrelevant to all levels of play, which is just wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a reason Dragon picks the characters he does, especially when hes playing for a boatload of money. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a casual player. Not everyone has the time and discipline to compete at a high level. But if you've never experienced it, does it really make sense to make such a broad, sweeping claim about something that exists in all competitive games, especially when that thing isn't exactly new? Especially when her main talking point is that people online shit talk her for playing Blanka? Completely ignoring the fact that you should be smacked upside the head if you get offended by online shit talk, this is the worst argument I've ever seen. When people take a shitter to a tournament and do well, what actually happens? Everybody gets hyped as fuck and they're instantly the crowd favorite! Not only that, but low tier heroes always get more respect than normal. I guess my main problem with this is that there is such of difference in thought process between casual and competitive players, and taking that into account this article should have never been published.

What worries me more is the fact that this article is receiving any kind of validation on this site. I'll give the commenters on Kotaku a pass because there's no telling what games those goons play or if they've ever played anything competitively in their lives. But if you're on this site, which is supposed to be the home for competitive NRS games, I'm assuming you care at least a little bit about continued growth as a player, which should be the ultimate goal of the competitive player. And this article was so blatantly awful that anyone with any kind of experience in anything competitive should be able to see that. I guess it speaks to the quality of the content on this site now that this is somehow getting praised.

This post is fuego.

@Tony at Home : So is yours.

 

[Marinjuana]

What do I need to do to make this thread about Joker?

 

[Vengeance135]

Yes, Aquaman is still good though, but Joker completely controls the pace of the match and will be able to build bar and keep Aquaman from doing so, and Aquaman gets shredded in the corner.

But see, stuff like this you don't see in a tier list. I think tier lists are just a good indication of where characters stand amongst each other. Some people look and automatically assume because that character is low on the tier list, they have no winning MU's or can't compare to the ones above. Joker does suck but people wouldn't think joker beats aquaman because aquaman has better general tools. It may be true that aquaman does have better tools in most aspects but joker has tools that help him navigate that specific MU better that allow him to win that specific MU. A tier list won't show you that. It will just say character A is better then character B.

In other words, I'm saying tier lists can be good overall just to see where a character stands and that's it.

MU charts and discussions (if utilized properly), should be the place where MU's are specifically broken down and discussed in depth.

Sorry, I realized I may have said the same thing 3 times lol I was just trying to get my thoughts out lol my bad

 

[God Confirm]

This isn't directed at you, but my issue with tier list and matchup numbers, is that although they do present opportunities for players to discuss matchups, they are discussed horribly. In all honesty, I feel matchup discussion should be first and foremost before any tier list or numbers are even presented.

I can go into any character forum on this site and would find little to almost no in depth discussion of character tools, strategies, etc. because most people are either too lazy to do it, or don't know how to argue. They also don't have the time, which is a legit argument, but have plenty of time arguing matchup numbers that have poor data to back it up. Then run to twitter groups when they get called out their shit lol.

This post here cannot be overstated. So many people are just utterly incapable of understanding what is their own mistake and what is the game in certain instances. I don't mean unwilling, and I don't mean still to learn this skill - I mean that these people are just actually incapable of admitting they were outplayed, and analyzing their mistakes. Their play will never improve significantly, they only get better if their character gets better, so they downplay and whine for buffs. Everyone is able to recognise some mistakes, but only a few people actually acknowledge that EVERY SINGLE TIME they lose a match, no matter what the case, there is things they could have done differently and won it. Nobody breaks this rule in I2, there is no Ivan. Every single time you get touched it's because of your own actions, an disadvantageous match up did not do it, it might have made it easier for your opponent in certain areas but it did not lose you the round.

Then match up numbers coming from this place instead of a logical one - and I don't mean from just unknown posters, I am talking about the majority of this site right now. I would say MOST of even the more recognizable posters on here do this. If you're wondering if I'm talking about you, I probably am. I might even be talking about myself on occasion, although as of the last 6 months I've tried to distance person experiences from opinions, and posted from knowledge. Bias is inevitable at times, but tunnel vision match up numbers are not excusable. Decently learn a character and play the match up from the other side, and when you thought your match up was losing cause one of your characters tools gets shut down, but realise now that you actually shut down 3 more things from your opponent quite well that you didn't know he wanted to be using. Actually do it for a match up that you're shifty on, it might be a real eye opener to some people about how narrow their view has been a lot of the time. That's become the norm around here, so everyone feels pretty validated talking like they know the game but really only know it from one or two character's eyes with blinkers on

 

[KingHippo]

I think the article is definitely from the perspective of lower end players, but I think it did make a good point on how tier lists tend to be full of shit if only because they usually aren't based on actual knowledge in lots ot spots.

As the article points out, you can usually point out who's really strong and who's really weak, but that middle ground is pretty much hearsay because most players, if they are serious, will pick up the perceived stronger characters, and if a character is just sort of unremarkable as far as appearance or moveset or whatever, then they will not be looked at with much critical thinking yet must be considered in a tier list, leading to a random placing that is really not supported by much but will be parroted by people who don't know any better.

The real problem is more that people don't really process information in anything other than absolutes, so nuance is lost to the void. A character can't be a high execution character with some exceptional matchups and many disadvantaged ones, they have to be "bad." A character can't be a strong, simplistic character with legitimate counterpicks, they have to be "broke."

 

[ImperatrixSindel]

If nothing else, writing a tier list before at least 6 months of the meta developing feels very counter-productive to me.

If there's something obviously broken, point that out, but it's absurd to rank every character that soon IMHO.

 

[Barrogh]

As for cold, they've done nerf after nerf yet barely touched catwoman and supergirl. Go figure....

I feel like NRS has more concerns than game's balance when they do what they do.

It seems that some characters may 6-4 entire cast and still be ignored as long as they can make their matchups look like a struggle. On the other hand, Cold's winning MUs looked like the opposition is completely out of options and Cold himself had to use like 2 buttons total (it's not like NRS gave him more).

It's possible they decided it looked dull and unattractive for onlookers, whereas aggressive and visceral play of CW or perceived need for adaptation for SG and her arsenal of tools meant dynamic picture with a good pace.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the treatment Deathstroke*, Cold and (maybe) Deadshot received was not just caused by some MU/balance concerns, but were basically to assassinate characters creating presentation of the game that was hard to market among wider audience.

"We can't get them right, so let just remove them from media lest they tarnish game's image".

Maybe it's not just

* - I know he was kinda silly initially. But they never revisited the changes once it became obvious that he has had disappeared completely.

By the way, you can take your tinfoil hats off now.

I think it did make a good point on how tier lists tend to be full of shit if only because they usually aren't based on actual knowledge in lots ot spots.

I mean, the author even mentioned Eventhub tier lists, for fuck's sake.

 

[SonicNinja3532]

This post here cannot be overstated. So many people are just utterly incapable of understanding what is their own mistake and what is the game in certain instances. I don't mean unwilling, and I don't mean still to learn this skill - I mean that these people are just actually incapable of admitting they were outplayed, and analyzing their mistakes. Their play will never improve significantly, they only get better if their character gets better, so they downplay and whine for buffs. Everyone is able to recognise some mistakes, but only a few people actually acknowledge that EVERY SINGLE TIME they lose a match, no matter what the case, there is things they could have done differently and won it. Nobody breaks this rule in I2, there is no Ivan. Every single time you get touched it's because of your own actions, an disadvantageous match up did not do it, it might have made it easier for your opponent in certain areas but it did not lose you the round.

Then match up numbers coming from this place instead of a logical one - and I don't mean from just unknown posters, I am talking about the majority of this site right now. I would say MOST of even the more recognizable posters on here do this. If you're wondering if I'm talking about you, I probably am. I might even be talking about myself on occasion, although as of the last 6 months I've tried to distance person experiences from opinions, and posted from knowledge. Bias is inevitable at times, but tunnel vision match up numbers are not excusable. Decently learn a character and play the match up from the other side, and when you thought your match up was losing cause one of your characters tools gets shut down, but realise now that you actually shut down 3 more things from your opponent quite well that you didn't know he wanted to be using. Actually do it for a match up that you're shifty on, it might be a real eye opener to some people about how narrow their view has been a lot of the time. That's become the norm around here, so everyone feels pretty validated talking like they know the game but really only know it from one or two character's eyes with blinkers on

Preaching to the choir man. Its hard for people to be self reflective in fighting games(and even more so in reality) so as such its hard for people to look at what they're doing wrong and how to change that. Everyone is guilty of shifting the blame to someone else at some point, its just in our nature as people imo.

 

[sinosleep]

Tool lists >tier lists.

At what range does the character excel? Does the character have the tools to get to that range and stay there? Particularly against characters that excel at a different range than they do? And lastly what are the execution requirements. Doesn't matter how great the tools are if the character is absurdly hard to use.

That's what's important when it comes to picking a character, not a tier lists. Especially when so much of what makes up tier lists is "perfect" play.

The number of times I've seen characters that do INSANE damage doing fuck all (even in the hands of tournament players) cause it's based on really hard to execute resets is crazy. Same goes for characters with "reactable" strings or overheads that get downgraded even though a ton of their "reactable" moves land in tournament ALL THE TIME.

 

[Cursa]

I just need justification for the salt I get when I lose to someone so that I can say they are just using top tiers

 

[Zed]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with picking the character you enjoy.

However, tier lists/MU Charts exist for a reason and while they aren't usually concrete they're usually in the right direction. Understand that if you're playing a low tier character its not going to be a walk in the park and the journey to leveling up is going to be so much worse for you then it would you played a strictly better character. You can't play a bad character and OS that for being the reason you lose.

I'm not saying its not possible to make low tier characters work but understand that you're working way harder than the normal person playing a better character.

I think we're at a point in the game where a lot of the things that are going to be discovered, have been. So the likelyhood of something ground breaking for a character coming out is very unlikely. It's safe to say in my opinion that we understand characters and can identify strengths and weaknesses fairly well. So as a community we really understand whats good and whats not.

I'll probably rant more later tbh

 

[Dankster Morgan]

“Low tier” characters in this game are sooooo much better than the low tier variations in MKX and Catwoman and Supergirl are soooooo much easier to deal with than Shinnok and Mileena. And the gap between the top and bottom is much smaller

 

[TaserFace007]

I don't know if ALL tier lists are garbage.

What's everybody's top five tier list threads?